If an idol is an idol, if a god is a god, a thing, in its own right/rite, is a thing, i.e. that which we make (of) it—its appearances/(re)presentations, its imperative(s)/clauses. We each perceive things and (with)in (a) given perception there’s an ineradicable singularity. In/with this (art) exhibition, I aim neither to champion nor fervidly worship such (occult) singularity, but I do hope to honor/admire it and make appeals/offerings as I feel appropriate. By giving things a (revised(?)) context, I assume they can take on form-content that is distinct/unique to/for their perceiver. This being said, thing ≠ art*, except in logically stating that [a locus of] art** can’t but be a thing. [And I’ve yet to speak of the image “itself” ([)and of faces(]).]

(The vacuum created by the arrival of freedom) and the possibilities it seems to offer

What I want to say (never mind the above if you want to—totally fine) is: if we have belief, we then find form-content/content-form; the more we consider fact[of matter and matter of fact]s, the more we may find them consummately difficult to prove; if we are to belong among/with (some) others, a certain amount of form-content/content-form must be agreed upon[; if we ask to be known, we must accept our actions (even if in regret)]; as we perceive, we have no absolute proof, but are accorded possibility of agreement yet.

Let me crash here for a moment—I don’t need to own it—no lie

I think this is what the show is about, but I know myself no more than you. Or as some astute younger contemporaries might discern: idk***.

All times mischoose the objects of their adulation and reward

*Art is commonly thought [not defined as] a suspension and a presence. Synonyms could include: art; human-manufacture-that-is-valued-for-reasons-other-than-its-technological-usefulness [imperfect of course]; [M/m]odern spiritual surrogate/replacement for previously dominant religious belief; an experience of an object of human manufacture generally encountered within a specified location/context and predicated on a certain remove/distance of the percipient that “summons” percipient in such a way that there may be no word for it other than “art”; a type of experience vis-a-vis certain human creations that philosophy tries to capture with words/categories/concepts such as “aesthetics.”**Art is nothing but itself, but unlike an object or an image art can’t be but a “thing” that eludes physical presence****, unless we commit to material specifics, e.g. frescopaintingsincertainenvironments, bronzecastrepresentationsof____, thingsencounteredin/onaplace/spacethatatleasttwopeopleagreeishostingart, etc.***(ID, K?/ eye decay/ I decay/ I’d eke, eh?) [(Pe(e)r( )mutation(s)/Mere( )putation(s)]****Obviously whatever the neurological mechanisms behind perception are, they can’t but be physical, but we cannot perceive our own perceptions, so to speak, so it’s a matter of a necessary, if at times arbitrary, distinction between mind and brain.**********It would presumably be difficult to prove the brain commands thought without integral support from other body systems.